Cathinfo and Moderator Matthew Exposed (www.cathinfo.com)

Cathinfo.com is a SSPX and Bishop Richard Williamson supporting forum
administered by a heretical Moderator named Matthew, who is a
fierce enemy of sexual purity (as will be shown, he removes such posts from his
website, calling it false doctrine) in addition to being an obstinate promoter
of bad, evil and sensual commercials through his website.

Renzo, a cathinfo.com forum
member writes concerning some of these ads:

"I
hate some of the ads I see here, but I get a kick out of some of them. This one
I like!"

Matto, another cathinfo.com
forum member writes:

"My
favorite Cathinfo ad was for a group of "Jews" who do not believe in
God, but have religious services anyway."

On February 22, 2014 Matto
posted a thread [the thread has since been deleted] about another evil ad that
Matthew allowed to happen on his website. The advertisement went as follows:

On May 23, 2011 Raoul76
complained about "a woman in a bikini" and that Matthew "gotta do
something about these ads":

Raoul76: "P.S. Matthew, you've gotta do something about these ads... Are you really making money off this site? There is a woman in a bikini down here, something called "Aria."

I have also personally
myself, in the past, seen forum members complain and being disturbed about
seeing extremly immodestly clothed women (some even in bikini’s as we’ve seen)
in advertisements at his website, although I could not find all the threads where
I read about this (Matthew frequently delete threads showing to him and complaining
about bad commercials). I have also frequently seen commercials of makeup at his
website. This, of course, is also totally evil since makeup is completely vain and
sinful. In fact, all the saints and fathers of the Church unanimously condemns and
oppose the use of makeup.

St.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Father of the Church (De Habit. Virg.): “I
hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without
exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work
and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments,
black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features.
. . They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This
is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt
not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the
devil has unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art
bedecked.” (Quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa
Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 169, Art. 2)

St.
Anthony Mary Claret, Archbishop of Santiago and Missionary: “Now,
observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many
women, and the raiment and adornments of Jesus… Tell me: what relation do
their fine shoes bear to the spikes in Jesus’ Feet? The rings on their hands to
the nails which perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of
Thorns? The painted face to That [of Jesus] covered with bruises?
Shoulders exposed by the low-cut gown to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but
there is a marked likeness between these worldly women and the Jews who,
incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord! At the hour of such a woman’s death, I
think Jesus will be heard saying: ‘Cujus est imago haec... of whom is she
the image?’ And the reply will be: ‘Demonii... of the Devil!’ Then He will say:
‘Let her who has followed the Devil’s fashions be handed over to him; and to
God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesus and Mary.’”

Thus Matthew, by his evil
action of obstinately allowing bad, heretical, sinful, sensual and vain
advertisements free access to his website, sadly proves that he don’t
really care about the good of the souls and of the people visiting his website,
but only about making a profit.

Concerning the evil
commercials at his website, Matthew said the following to me in an email:

"did
you know that Google displays ads based on one's past Internet browsing
behavior? At any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I
add it to the block list."

By his response, Matthew is
trying to indicate that people that sees bad commercials at his website sees
them in large part because they surf bad websites. He said this in response to
me after I complained to him and condemned him for obstinately permitting this
evil filth to happen at his website to the harm of souls and the offense of
God, and he told me that I must be surfing bad websites if I see bad ads. This
assertion, however, is completely false and is easily refuted and is even shown
to be false by his own testimony, as will be shown later on.

However, even though Matthew
said above that he blocks the bad commercials as best as he can whenever he is
made aware of them, still, as was shown above, he cannot really block them all
or avoid them all to be shown at his forum and to his visitors since he, by
his own choice, has obstinately decided to allow them (the commercials) free and
largely ungoverned access to his website.

Now, in contrast to Matthew’s
evil actions at cathinfo.com, consider the stern words of Jesus as recorded in
the Gospel of Luke about people giving others a “scandal”, that is, those
who give to others an occasion of sinning or of falling into sin:

Luke
17:1-2: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is,
temptations or encouragements to sin] should not come: but woe to him
through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize
one of these little ones.”

As we can see here, Jesus
says that it’s better to be drowned in the depths of the sea than to give
“scandal” to anyone. Yet Matthew does the exact opposite and (obstinately so)
gives to all people that are visiting his website a direct cause for “scandal”
and an occasion of falling into sin through the immoral, vain and heretical
internet ads that he permits and allows to be displayed there and, what is even
worse, he does this even after he has been told not to do so and he
even defends himself!

Raoul76:
"Matthew, do you have no control over the banner ads that show up here? I
didn't say anything about the Zoosk one, but tonight there's one that is
popping up for something called Miracle Noodles that is potentially
mortal-sin-inducing [due to an immoral, tempting image?]. Just a
heads-up."

Matthew:
"Yes, I do have control -- well, veto power at least. If you could
give me the domain name the ad leads to, I could add it to the blacklist. So
far, only ONE member has sent me several e-mails letting me know about bad ads
[Editors note: Matthew is truly clueless if he actually thinks the forum users
should do the work for him, when, in fact, he should not even allow the ads to
be shown there even to begin with!]. I can't see them myself, I view the
site too much and besides it's against the Terms and Conditions for me to
view/click on my own ads. I encourage all members to let me know when
immodest ads appear. Now I don't care about heretical ads -- they're
not the least bit sinful unless you click on them AND respond to them
("You're right; I need to become a Mormon!") The only ads I will
be blacklisting are ones with immodest attire. And please, don't complain
about every woman in pants or woman that doesn't look like she came from a
Traditional Catholic chapel -- I'm just talking about bikinis and
essentially soft porn."

This statement is totally
evil. It’s disgusting! He don’t care about heretical, soul slaying internet
ads he says. Really? So Matthew don’t care about that all
people who are visiting his website are being exposed to life or soul
threatening dangers that will risk sending them to Hell for all eternity if
they embrace the heresy -- so long as they don’t actually embrace the
heresy!? No, they (the mortally sinful, evil, ungodly, blasphemous and
heretical internet ads) are not even sinful, he says, so long as "you
[don't] click on them AND respond to them". (And by the way, why did
Matthew mention this statement: "You're right; I need to become a
Mormon!" Is this an ad that has been shown and that he has permitted
to be shown on his website?) This is so evil, for consider if an ex-Jew,
ex-Mormon, an atheists, or someone else who genuinely was interested in
learning about the Catholic faith visited his website and became deceived by a
heretical ad promoting a different false religion, such as Judaism, atheism, or
Mormonism. Wouldn’t that be totally evil, uncharitable and bad to be personally
responsible for? Yet this is exactly what Matthew does and what he exposes his visitors
too. Eternal Hell and insufferable torments will rightly and justly be the home
of all those people who have such an empty love and no true charity towards their
neighbor, and for all those who care more about a useless, temporal profit
rather than then the good of souls, which are eternal.

St.
Alphonsus Liguori, On the Sin of Scandal: “[Those] who by their bad example
scandalized the people, that they were children of the devil, who was from the
beginning a murderer of souls. "You are of your father, the devil: he
was a murderer from the beginning." (John 8.44) … And, in reality, what
other office do the authors of scandal perform, than that of a minister of the
devil? If he were not assisted by such impious ministers, he certainly would not
succeed in gaining so many souls. A scandalous companion does more injury than
a hundred devils.”

Woe to the love of mammon,
which is the beginning of all evil. “For
the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred
from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.” (1 Timothy
6:10) Moderator Matthew’s own words absolutely proves that he 1) “have erred
from the faith,” 2) that he couldn’t care less about the souls that are being
harmed and that he permits to be harmed, and 3) that a filthy income is far
more import to him than the good of souls that are being harmed and that he permits
to be harmed with a full knowledge of the fact that this is happening (and yes
Matthew has been rebuked many times and many people have also complained to him about
bad commercials, as we have seen, but Matthew is sure to remove most of those threads
and complaints and is even known to ban people (such as he banned me) for calling him
out on this, among other things, and that he is a mortal sinner for spreading this filth
on his forum to the destruction of souls and the offense of God—whom he claim to worship).

Matthew
6:24: “[Jesus said:] No man can serve two masters. For either he will
hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the
other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

It is also revealing that
Matthew says he’s only opposed to “bikinis and essentially soft porn” and
“immodest attire” (whatever that would be) at his website. Okay, so everything
else goes? He said: “And please, don't complain about every woman
in pants or woman that doesn't look like she came from a Traditional
Catholic chapel...” So does this mean we should not complain to him
about “every” commercial with women clothed after the world’s fashion with
tight clothing and pants unless these ads displays something that is the
equivalent of soft porn, bikini’s or whatever else he himself deems immodest?

If Matthew allows any kind of
immodesty at his website – such as allowing ads that shows the so-called modern
day women’s fashion that reveals the womanly figure by the wearing of pants and
tight clothing in a revealing, sensual or immodest way – this would not only be
immodest and immoral, but also completely evil and a mortal sin since such
clothing has the direct and potential cause to incite a man’s lust and hence
cause him – the visitors to his website – to commit the mortal sin of lust and
adultery in their hearts.

Matthew
5:28: “[Jesus said:] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a
woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Whatever the case, Matthew is
still exposing all of his visitors at his supposed “Traditional Catholic” forum
to fall into this grievous sin against God, their neighbor and their own soul
since he perversely allows such ads even the possibility to be displayed at his
website to begin with, though he perfectly knows and are perfectly aware of
that some of the ads will be totally evil and mortally sinful inducing and
immoral. He said: “The only ads I will be blacklisting are ones with immodest
attire. … I'm just talking about bikinis and essentially soft porn.
… At any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I add it
to the block list.” So this proves in his own words that he knows this
is happening.

St.
Jean Eudes, Priest and Missionary and Founder of the Congregation of Jesus
and Mary: “But there is perhaps nothing more striking than what is reported
by St. Jerome, one of the four great Doctors of Holy Church, and which took
place during his lifetime, in a house which he knew perfectly and in regard to
a Roman lady of high condition, named Praetextate. She was sister-in-law of St.
Paula, the spiritual daughter of this great Saint. St. Paula wishing to quit
the city of Rome, to visit the holy places in Judea which the Savior had
hallowed by His presence, left her daughter Eustochium, who also wished to
consecrate herself to God, in the care of her aunt, Praetextate. This latter
wished to frustrate the designs of the pious Paula upon her daughter, and by
the advice of her husband, obliged the young girl to lay aside her simple,
modest dress and assume a more sumptuous one, at the same time compelling her
to wear her hair according to the latest fashion and to paint her cheeks. A
fearful chastisement overtook the worldly woman; for, on the night following,
an Angel sent by God spoke to her thus: "Thou hast dared to prefer the
command of thy husband to that of Jesus Christ, and with sacrilegious hands to
adorn after a worldly fashion the head of this virgin of God. Behold the
punishment of thy crime! Thy hands which have done this deed shall become
withered, so that they will never more serve thee, and in five months from now
thou shalt be cast into hell. And if thou shalt continue in thy wickedness, thy
husband and all thy children shall likewise die." All of which, says St.
Jerome, was accomplished to the letter, and, at the end of five months, the
unhappy woman died suddenly, without giving any sign of repentance.”

Our Lady of Fatima in the
year 1917 also warned about the evils of modern day women’s fashion and about
the sins of the flesh in deed and thought that is directly caused by this most
evil sin:

Our
Lady of Fatima: “The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead
most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to
be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God
should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is
always the same. Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and
are not of God.”

Yet according to modern-day
“Catholics” who know nothing about the Catholic faith and the teachings of the
saints, current modern-day fashion in which women dress like men or with
revealing and tight clothing showing off their womanly form (even if modestly),
is not offensive to God. Well, they are completely wrong.

St. Clement of Alexandria, Father of the Church,
On Clothes (c. 198 A.D.): “Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the
shape of the bodyis no more a covering. For such
clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and
adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the
woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to
spectators, although they cannot see the body itself.” (The Instructor
or The Paedagogus, Book II, Chapter XI)

How did most
Catholic women, and even pagans and infidels, dress before in time? The answer
is that they all dressed more like how nuns are dressed, that is, they were
using a long dress totally covering their behind, front
and legs down to the ankle and up to the waist with no tight fitting, visible
parts whatsoever below the waist. And above the waist were
usually worn, not some insignificant, small, thin shirt or “covering” as most
woman dress today showing of their whole womanly form, even if not revealing
any flesh, but rather a significant, thick, long shirt that covers the womanly
figure, the arms down to the wrist, shoulders and neck. Neither did these
dresses or shirts end visibly at the waist, thus inviting curious immodest
thoughts or revealing any flesh or worse as modern day shirts, dresses, skirts
and pants do, but these skirts or dresses were usually one part of the whole
dress, or worn in such a way as to invite no immodest thoughts. Such dresses
are totally without guilt. Everything else will at least have some fault. In
general, the more the clothing reveals flesh and the bodily form, the more
sinful it becomes. Not only did most women dress in such a good way before in
time, but most women, and especially the poorer, did not wear any makeup at
all, and all women also wore a head covering in the Church, and a large portion
of the women also wore it in everyday occasions.

Considering how
most western woman dress today, it’s safe to say that many of them in fact
dress in a mortally sinful fashion. A woman that does not desire to be lusted
after by others and who do not want to give others an occasion of falling into
sin, will of course never dress in a sensual or immodest way. Indeed, very few
people today dress without any guilt at all. But amongst the few who do, most
of them are definitely found amongst the pagans, infidels and idolaters, and
especially in the poorer countries.

St.
Alphonsus Liguori, On the Sin of Scandal: “"The wolf catches and
scatters the sheep." (John 10.12) The wolves that catch and scatter the
sheep of Jesus Christ are the authors of scandal, who, not content with their
own destruction, labor to destroy others. But the Lord says: "Woe to that
man by whom the scandal comes." (Matt. 18.7) Woe to him who gives scandal,
and causes others to lose the grace of God. Origen says that "a person
who impels another to sin, sins more grievously than the other." If,
brethren, there be any among you who has given scandal, I will endeavor this
day to convince him of the evil he has done, that he may bewail it and guard
against it for the future. I will show, in the first point, the great
displeasure which the sin of scandal gives to God; and, in the second, the
great punishment which God threatens to inflict on the authors of scandal. …

“1. It is, in the first place, necessary to explain
what is meant by scandal. Behold how St. Thomas defines it: "Scandal is a
word or act which gives occasion to the ruin of one’s neighbor." (S.
Theol. 2-2, q. 45, art. 1) Scandal, then, is a word or act by which you are
to your neighbor the cause or occasion of losing his soul [such as by posting
or linking to soul slaying material that will induce others to sin]. It may be
direct or indirect. It is direct when you directly tempt or induce another to
commit sin. It is indirect when, although you foresee that sinful words or
actions will be the cause of sin to another, you do not abstain from them. But
scandal, whether it be direct or indirect, if it be in a matter of great
importance, is always a mortal sin. …

“3. But nothing can show the value which God sets on
the souls of men more clearly than what the Incarnate Word has done for their
redemption from sin and hell. "If," says St. Eucharius, "you do
not believe your Creator, ask your Redeemer, how precious you are." Speaking
of the care which we ought to have of our brethren, St. Ambrose says: "The
great value of the salvation of a brother is known from the death of
Christ." We judge of the value of everything by the price paid for it by
an intelligent purchaser. Now, Jesus Christ has, according to the Apostle,
purchased the souls of men with his own blood. "You are bought with a
great price." (1 Cor. 6.20) We can, then, say that the soul is of as much
value as the blood of a God. Such, indeed, is the language of St. Hilary.
"Tam copioso munere redemptio agitur, ut homo Deum valere videatur." Hence,
the Savior tells us that whatever good or evil we do to the least of his
brethren, we do to himself. "So long as you did it to one of these my
least brethren, you did it to me." (Matt. 25.40) …

“4. From all this we may infer how great is the
displeasure given to God by scandalizing a brother, and destroying his soul. It
is enough to say that they who give scandal rob God of a child, and murder a
soul, for whose salvation he has spent his blood and his life. Hence, St. Leo
calls the authors of scandals murderers. "Quisquis scandalizat, mortem
infert animae proximi." They are the most impious of murderers; because
they kill not the body, but the soul of a brother, and rob Jesus Christ of all
his tears, of his sorrows, and of all that he has done and suffered to gain
that soul. Hence the Apostle says: "Now, when you sin thus against the
brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." (1
Cor. 8.12) They who scandalize a brother, sin against Christ; because, as
St. Ambrose says, they deprive him of a soul for which he has spent so many
years, and submitted to so many toils and labors. …

“7. "Woe to that man by whom the scandal
comes." (Matt. 18.7) If the displeasure given to God by scandal be
great, the chastisement which awaits the authors of it must be frightful.
Behold how Jesus Christ speaks of this chastisement: "But he that shall
scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him
that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned
in the depth of the sea." (Matt. 18.6) If a malefactor dies on the
scaffold, he excites the compassion of the spectators, who at least pray for
him, if they cannot deliver him from death. But, were he cast into the depths
of the sea, there would be no one present to pity his fate. A certain author
says that Jesus Christ threatens the person who scandalizes a brother with this
sort of punishment, to signify that he is so hateful to the angels and saints,
that they do not wish to recommend to God the man who has brought a soul to perdition.
"He is declared unworthy not only to be assisted, but even to be
seen." (Mansi. ch. 3, no. 4) …

“9. For the sin of scandal hell was created.
"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." (Gen. 1.1) But, when
did he create hell? It was when Lucifer began to seduce the angels into
rebellion against God. Lest he should continue to pervert those who remained
faithful to God, he was banished from heaven immediately after his sin. Hence
Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees, who by their bad example scandalized the
people, that they were children of the devil, who was from the beginning a
murderer of souls. "You are of your father, the devil: he was a
murderer from the beginning." (John 8.44) … And, in reality, what other
office do the authors of scandal perform, than that of a minister of the devil?
If he were not assisted by such impious ministers, he certainly would not
succeed in gaining so many souls. A scandalous companion does more injury than
a hundred devils. …

“11. Miserable wretches! the authors of scandal
must suffer in hell the punishment of all the sins they have made others commit.
Cesarius relates (Bk. 2, ch. 6) that, after the death of a certain person who
had given scandal, a holy man witnessed his judgment and condemnation, and saw
that, at his arrival at the gate of hell, all the souls whom he had scandalized
came to meet him, and said to him: Come, accursed wretch, and atone for all the
sins which you have made us commit [by your deeds and actions, such as by
immodest forum posts, images and links that contains such images etc]. They
then rushed in upon him, and like so many wild beasts, began to tear him in
pieces. St. Bernard says that, in speaking of other sinners, the Scriptures
hold out hopes of amendment and pardon; but they speak of those who give
scandal as persons separated from God, of whose salvation there is very little
hope. "Loquitur tanquam a Deo separati, unde hisce nulla spes vitae
esse poterit." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (nn. 2-4) taken from Ascetical
Works, Volume XVI: Sermons for all Sundays in the Year (1882) pp. 152-173)

Email
conversations, responses and discussions with moderator Matthew, exposing some
of his lies, heresies, omissions, and scandals

After promoting Catholic
sexual purity and condemning as a heresy and a mortal sin the evil practice of
sexual foreplay and Natural Family Planning (or NFP) on his forum, this is what
happened (my own email conversation with Matthew will be provided at the end):

Matthew
said: "He was banned for being a duplicate account, and for heresy.
He is the same man as "Heitanen" whom I banned a long time ago.
Let's see -- AllMonks was a member for a week or two, and racked up 100+ VERY
LONG posts on NFP. The man is OBSESSED WITH SEX. To be more precise, he is
obsessed with puritanism and prudishness with regards to sex. It's like he
sits there all day sexually frustrated and puts all his energy into posting.
Or something. To sum up his heresy in a nutshell: Under his previous
account, he expressed the belief that a lawfully married couple had to
"take care of business" as expeditiously as possible, with the
lights off, etc. and make sure to "think unpleasurable thoughts"
during the whole 60-second encounter. He said that a couple must resist any
pleasure that might arise, and/or pray during the experience. Sorry, but I've
studied enough Catholic theology and Church History to know blatant heresy
when I see it. I am aware of the heresies of Puritanism, the Manicheanism,
etc."

Ladislaus
said: "Perhaps "heresy" is too strong a word, Matthew. That
word is thrown around on all sides way too casually. If he believes that
sensible pleasure is intrinsically evil, well then yes he would be a
Manichaeen / gnostic type. If, however, he's speaking to the fact that in our
fallen state it's nearly impossible without taking such measures to
subordinate the sensible pleasure to the intellect and the will, then he
would be correct. Church Fathers would have characterized the insubordination
of sensible pleasure over the will and intellect as a venial sin. At the very
least it's an imperfection that can harm the soul. That's why even St. Paul
says that virginity is ideal but that it's better to be married than to burn.
Our Lord said that there would be no marriage in heaven, that we would become
like the angels. So it would depend on what AllMonks (or his predecessor
screen name) would have meant by these statements."

Matthew
said in response: "It's a bit disturbing that you seem to be on
"his side". I didn't read all of his voluminous posts, nevermind
the dozen threads he posted in, but if I'm not mistaken you were siding with
him. Having a puritan view of sex is *not* Catholic. Sex is good, holy, and
beautiful. It's not for public consumption because it's sacred, not because
it's dirty. It was designed by God, along with the pleasure and consequent
chemically-induced psychological and emotional bonding that accompanies it.
That's why the devil strives so fiercely to corrupt it. It's the easiest way
to gain souls for hell. Bad marriages, bad companions, bad habits, broken families,
lack of Catholic training, bad example, etc. More souls go to hell because of
sins of the flesh, etc. When a man starts distorting doctrine in ANY
direction, the only Catholic response is revulsion. Therefore I have
revulsion re: Heitanen's views. You seem to be interested in his views and
have thought about them deeply, to the point that you agree with him (!) You
know, there is a pretty strong pleasure attached to eating, too. But no one
claims it's a sin to eat delicious food (rather than bland or even disgusting
food), nor does anyone say we must eat only plain dry bread OR WE'RE GOING TO
HELL. Or that if you can't scrape all the flavor off your food, you must
sprinkle it with bitter herbs and hold your nose while eating it. But that's
precisely Heitanen's view on sex. It's as wrong and perverted as the
hedonists -- just in the opposite direction. Both are repulsive to anyone
with a well-formed Catholic sense."

Forum user Aquinas
wrote the following in response to Matthew’s accusations above (he was also
banned by Matthew after posting this reply):

Aquinas:
"I'm not sure of how much was actually represented accurately by you
Matthew, for without providing the quotations on what was actually said,
misrepresentations or slander happens easily.

Either
way, I am surprised how you can call this a heresy. What is heretical in
teaching that one should minimize or avoid pleasure/lust as much as possible?
Or with teaching that one should pray during or before the marital act?
Perhaps you did now know that this is the unanimous teaching of all fathers
and the saints (and the bible) too? It is common knowledge that the Church
has always had a negative view of sex.

All
the Fathers and Saint viewed the lust connected in the marital act in a
negative way, and they all taught that one should avoid seeking after
pleasures of the flesh as much as possible and that if one chooses to have
sex, it should only be done for the sake of procreation.

What
is heresy with that? It's the precise Catholic position!

I'll
admit that I totally agree with AllMonks teaching on sexual ethics that he
presented in this forum, since it can backed up with the teachings of the
fathers, saints and popes (something most modern theologians or laymen fail
to do when giving license to their perversions).

Everyone
can read for themselves what their position is on their website, and I
encourage people to read their article if they wonder what the church's
position is (yes, they use Catholic sources):

(And
by the way, you may notice that many things of what Matthew claimed he taught
in the below quotation is not fond on their website (at least as far I am
aware of).)

Matthew
said: "You know, there is a pretty strong pleasure attached to eating,
too. But no one claims it's a sin to eat delicious food (rather than bland
or even disgusting food), nor does anyone say we must eat only plain dry
bread OR WE'RE GOING TO HELL. Or that if you can't scrape all
the flavor off your food, you must sprinkle it with bitter herbs and hold
your nose while eating it. But that's precisely Heitanen's view on
sex."

I
read some of his posts and I saw none of the things mentioned that you
accused him of, Matthew.

I
don't know what he posted in the past, but considering how he was
misrepresented by some in the NFP discussions I read, I would not be
surprised if this is the case here too.

From
what I read, I think AllMonks made his position abundantly clear when he said
that unlawful lusts was a mortal sin. He never said that lawful lust modestly
indulged in was a sin.

So
why do you claim his position was that it's a mortal sin and leads to Hell?

By
the way, they make it clear on their website that those things (which you
Matthew called mortal sins) are not mortal sins but that they nevertheless
should be avoided or lessened for perfections sake. To teach purity and
perfection is not a heresy (as you claim) provided one does not claim that
lawful is unlawful—which they don't by the way (but that is what you claim.)

The
only way one could claim they teach that lawful is unlawful is if one
disagrees with the authority they present.

AllMonks
made it clear that unlawful lust was mortal sin (i.e., lustful kisses,
touches, thoughts etc. (also in marriage)) and he proved that this was the
case by providing Catholic sources – St. Thomas Aquinas and Jaen Gerson.

If
you read their article you will see that many Fathers believed the same. Pope
Alexander VII also condemned kisses performed for lustful motives [for the
married and unmarried] as a mortal sin.

So
if you have a problem with this Matthew, then your problem is not with
AllMonks teaching, but with the unanimous teaching of the Church, Popes,
Saints and the Fathers.

Matthew
said: "Having a puritan view of sex is *not* Catholic. Sex is good, holy,
and beautiful. It's not for public consumption because it's sacred,
not because it's dirty. It was designed by God, along with the
pleasure and consequent chemically-induced psychological and emotional
bonding that accompanies it. That's why the devil strives so fiercely to
corrupt it. It's the easiest way to gain souls for hell. Bad marriages,
bad companions, bad habits, broken families, lack of Catholic training, bad
example, etc. More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh,
etc."

Did
you know that St. Thomas even teaches that it's a mortal sin for spouses to
perform even an inappropriate position during the marital act – since this in
many cases is a sign of passion? (See quote provided from their article
below.) Would you call him a Manichean, Puritan or a heretic for that? I
think not.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, In Libros Sententiarum, Chapter IV, Section 31, 2, 3: “Marital
relations are contrary to nature when either the right receptacle or the
proper position required by nature is avoided. In the first case it
is always a mortal sin because no offspring can result, so that the purpose
of nature is completely frustrated. But in the second case [of
inappropriate sexual positions] it is not always a mortal sin, as some say,
though it can be the sign of a passion which is mortal; at times the
latter can occur without sin, as when one’s bodily condition does not permit
any other method. In general, this practice is more serious the more it
departs from the natural way.”

And
sex/lust as it is today Matthew was not how it was in the beginning.
According to the Fathers, sexual pleasure or concupiscence is the result of
the fall of man. It was thus not created by God in this way, but rather the
result of Adam's and Eve's transgression – a defect from Original Sin.

And
as some have already wonderfully pointed out in this thread[*]:
sex/concupiscence is NOT Holy nor sacred. In fact, it is
the direct opposite of holy, since it came from and originated from Sin and
Disobedience against God. The Church has always viewed sex in a negative way,
and even God in the old testament described it as a source of impurity.

[*
Kreuzritter1945 said: "At any rate, the Magisterium has used a number of
terms to describe the sexual act, but “holy” has never been one of them. The
physical act involved in reproduction (as distinguished from the soul infused
at conception) can no more be holy than eating a good meal can be holy. Both
are bodily goods, but goodness and holiness are two different things—a
distinction that has been lost in the general conflation of grace and nature
in post-conciliar thinking. Further, the sexual act involves a dark mystery
to which West is apparently oblivious. As Pope Pius XI observes in Casti
Connubii, a classic statement of traditional Catholic teaching on human
sexuality: “the very natural process of generating life has become the way of
death by which original sin is passed on to posterity…” (Casti Connubii, n.
14). The sexual act, while of course not evil in itself, is nevertheless by
the divine command an instrument for the transmission of death itself and the
corruption of human nature on account of Adam’s transgression, even though it
also results in the creation of an immortal soul. Then, of course, the sexual
act is fraught with our inherited concupiscence... For these reasons alone,
any attempt to declare the sex act “holy” is offensive to pious ears at best.
And if “sex is holy” (as opposed to being a mere bodily good) why does the
Catholic mind reel in horror at the thought of Our Lord or Our Lady engaging
in even legitimate nuptial relations? Why is the celibate state exemplified by
Christ Himself and the very Mother of God higher than the married state
according to Sacred Scripture and all of Tradition? Why will there be no
“holy sex” of any kind in heaven, if holy it is? The answer is that the
sexual act is a lowly and passing thing of this world to which a penalty must
attach because of original sin, and that in the divine plan it will never be
anything but an ephemeral aspect of earthly existence having no part
whatsoever in the life eternal of the blessed."]

Matthew
said: "Bad marriages, bad companions, bad habits, broken families, lack
of Catholic training, bad example, etc. More souls go to hell because of sins
of the flesh, etc. When a man starts distorting doctrine in ANY direction,
the only Catholic response is revulsion. Therefore I have revulsion re:
Heitanen's views. You seem to be interested in his views and have thought
about them deeply, to the point that you agree with him (!) It's as wrong and
perverted as the hedonists -- just in the opposite direction. Both are
repulsive to anyone with a well-formed Catholic sense."

Yes
more souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh. That's precisely and
exactly what AllMonks tried to make people aware of.

Yet
you seem to think that the Catholic teaching is heresy, and that the heresy
is Catholicism?

Tell
me, do you agree with this statement by Jearn Gerson (that also was quoted by
AllMonks)? If not, then perhaps you should consider Our Lady's statement a
little more closely and seriously: More souls go to hell because of sins of
the flesh, etc.

Jean Gerson, Oeuvres
Complétes: “Several doctors [of Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering
wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin [also
between spouses], even without doing the deed. Be sure, however, that kisses,
gazes, and fondling, mainly caused by such wicked and lustful thoughts [that
is, for the motive of lust or sexual pleasure], without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do not respect the
honesty which is usually kept in public.

“… You
have committed the sin of lust [also in marriage]: If you have fondled
and stroked yourself on your shameful member until you obtain the dirty
carnal pleasure. If you initiated such sins with others, by words, kisses,
fondling, or other signs, or immodest paintings.… If you committed this sin
differently from Nature ordered, or against the honesty that belongs to
marriage.… If you wanted to be desired and lusted after for your beauty, your
behavior, your clothes, makeup, dancing or dissolute gazes.

“… What
a young boy should tell in confession: I sometimes stroked myself or
others, urged by disorderly pleasure; I fondled myself, in my bed and
elsewhere, something I would not have dared to do if people had been there.
Sometimes the priest cannot absolve such fondling. If they are not confessed
and the details given, whatever the shame, one cannot be absolved, and the
confession is worthless: one is destined to be damned for ever in Hell. The
action and the way it has been done must be told.

“… Is
it a sin to kiss [also in marriage]? I answer that kisses between spouses
who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them
openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [that is, for the
motive of lust or sexual pleasure] that I cannot be more precise, it is an
abominable deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and publicly, as
a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is
no sin. They could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or
lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.

“… The
fifth commandment is: thou shall not kill. … They commit this sin who
succeed, in whatever way, in preventing the fruit which should come from
carnal intercourse between man and woman.… It is forbidden for two people,
married or not, to do any kind of lustful fondling without respecting the way
and the vessel Nature requires for conceiving children [that is, one cannot
perform “extra” sexual acts not able to procreate or intended for
procreation]. It is worse when it is outside of the natural way [unnatural
sexual acts], either if it is out of wedlock or even worse, within it [that
is, all unnecessary and non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are
considered as worse sins than when they are committed outside of marriage].

“Is it permitted for spouses to prevent the
conception of a child? No: I often say that it is a sin worse than
murder. It is a sin which deserves the fires of Hell. Briefly, any way of
preventing conception during intercourse is dishonest and reprehensible.”

Please also consider that exactly
this kind of information (as quoted above by Aquinas) – that is, quotes from the saints, fathers and
doctors of the Church on sexual morality (such as the Jean Gerson and St.
Thomas Aquinas quotes above), and other information condemning NFP and
promoting the need to always desire children during every marital act – is
what Mathew systematically removed, deleted, banned and called it a heresy
and near heresy. Incredible!

The following is Matthew’s
pathetic response and actions to Aquinas post above:

Matthew
said: "He is the same as "Heitanen" and "AllMonks", or
at least of the same mind. I won't have people on this board that are
obsessed with sex. Especially not those who are obsessed with sex AND
near-heretical in their views about the morality of it. And to
Heitanen -- since you're obviously reading this: Go away and stay away.
Go get married or something. Maybe the stay-at-home "monastic" life
wasn't for you after all. As St. Paul said, better to marry than to burn. And
you burn with an obsession about a very, very small part of human life. Do I
even need to point this out -- hasn't EVERYONE noticed as well? You posted
for HOURS about the very same topic, for days on end. It's all you study,
think, or "know" about (though I would say you are in error, not
knowledgeable, but I digress)"

First, consider the fact that
most people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh (as revealed by our
Lady of Fatima). Second, also consider the fact that almost everyone today
commits some form or another of sexual mortal sin, such as foreplay, and
lustful kisses and touches (whether inside or outside of marriage), and that
this occurs whether they call themselves “protestant”, “Catholic”, or
“traditional Catholic”, or even atheists, infidels or pagans etc. So it is
not without reason that we focus so much on, and promote so sternly, the sexual
morality that is required in order to be saved when the whole world is fallen
in it, as will be demonstrated as we move along on this article.

In fact, even some people at
his own forum sadly believes in, and performs these mortal sins and
heresies, such as foreplay, and believe that it is right to do this within a
marriage (I pointed this fact out to
Matthew, and the thread in which this heresy was discussed was later deleted).
So this is just further proof of why we spend time teaching people about sexual
morality, since even those who claim to be “traditional Catholic” and who
should live like angels, are fallen into this mortal vice. Yet even though this
information is so crucial and important for the salvation of souls, the demonic
moderator Matthew at cathinfo.com removed every single post and quotation
that forum user AllMonks had posted from the saints, fathers, popes and
theologians of the Catholic Church dealing on this very issue that could have
helped people (like those described above) to come out of their heresy and
mortal sin. It is evil.

Matthew
said: "I don't know why he keeps bothering us here on CathInfo -- is
it to convert us? No. How can I say that? Because he doesn't act
like the Saints did. The saints were zealous and fervent in their love of
souls, the truth, and sinners. They strove day and night to convert them. But
they didn't try to catch flies with vinegar. And they spent plenty of time in
PRAYER, FASTING, and CORPORAL PENANCE to convert sinners. That is how sinners
are converted. Read "The Soul of the Apostolate" for more
information. We do have to resort to words, actions, and writings -- but they
are given unction and efficacy ONLY by ourselves or someone else offering up
prayers and penance. That is how the economy of salvation works. Not
by armchair lay theology, ceaseless arguing, calling names (especially cuss
words), and other human and base behavior. Sorry, such a person doesn't pass
my Catholic "smell test". St. Francis de Sales knew when to give up
and move on to fasting and prayer for an incorrigible sinner. But that's only
if a person is TRULY interested in God and the salvation of souls. If he's
interested in himself, "winning" an argument, or some other base
motive (such as obsession with a given topic) -- then he'll behave
differently..."

As should be
clear from his above post, Matthew is a clear mortal sinner and a slanderer
since he (and not infrequently must be added) presumes to know other people’s
intentions and why they do something. For as we can see above, he emphatically
declared that my intention was not to help or to convert people.
That is a direct lie. Do he really think he can make such false judgments and
escape severe judgment in Hell? Now, does Matthew know that any of his accusation
are true? Of course not! Yet the mortal sinner Matthew actually dares to make
such evil judgments about others without any actual proof of this, and he
solely does this on his own evil authority, judgments and conclusions.

Sadly, as we will
now move along towards Matthew’s and mine’s email conversations, we will see
even more clearly how he is completely fallen and sunken into this mortal sin
of rash and false judgments. Only an inherently evil and prideful person that
doesn’t fear God or His judgments one bit and who wants to defend himself at
all cost rather than stand firm in justice, would ever dare to make such false
and evil judgments as Matthew does – or ever dare to think that he knows the
other person’s actual intentions or motives better than the actual person
himself! Who but a complete and satanic pervert would dare to declare another
persons motives and intentions as evil, sinful or false without any evidence of
this? Yet this is exactly what the mortal sinner Matthew does all the time, as
will be shown even more clearly below.

See our section On
False Judgments and Slander
available on our website. It is very important for one’s salvation to learn not
to slander others or think evil about them with slight or no evidence. Doing
otherwise, that is, making evil and false judgments or conclusions about
others, is a mortal sin.

An
email conversation between Hietanen and Matthew, showing some of his past evil
actions (such as twice banning me after calling him out on his perverse, evil
ways for allowing evil ads to be displayed on his website); furthering
addressing some of his lies, falsehoods, dishonesties, and his resistance and
apparent hatred of Catholic teaching on sexual morality

The following response was
sent to Matthew’s email; it was also posted on his forum with some
modifications. (This is the response as it was posted on his forum.) However,
after making this post on his forum, it was almost immediately removed and the
forum account banned.

However much Matthew tries to
hide this truth from you, he will be exposed and his evil actions will come to
light...

Hietanen
said: "I don't know why you banned Aquinas, but one thing is clear, you
are a prideful evil person that can't take a single inch of criticism against
your false, preconceived thoughts.

It's
also despicable how you continue to call the Catholic view on sex
"puritan" or "heresy" or near heresy. And worse is that you do so despite being corrected
by many; even after having read quotations of Saints, Fathers and Catholic
theologians backing up this position refuting yours. That makes you a heretic
rather than those whom you falsely accuse of embracing it.

Considering
how you accuse/act against previous posters on this topic, No doubt, but
if a Saint Jerome or any of the Fathers would have expressed many of their
own views on sex or marriage in your forum today, they would perhaps have
been immediately banned by you and accused of "Puritanism" too?
Yet St. Jerome. St. Thomas Aquinas, Jaen Gerson among others are all
renowned, well known, respected Doctors, Theologians or Saints of the
Catholic Church! You claim to know the faith, yet seem oblivious to the fact
that Tradition all agrees with the very position you resist and ban; that it
teaches strictness and the great importance of sexual purity; and that it
condemns your false condemned view of "Sacred" or "Holy"
sex.

You
also did not answer Aquinas question on whether you agreed with Jaen Gerson
and Saint Thomas Aquinas view on the topic of sexual morality (both of whom
by the way agreed with AllMonks view, which you falsely called a heresy). If
you do not agree with their view, which is the position of the Catholic
Church, then you are a mortal sinner and a heretic (but we already know you
are for the reason of the evil advertisements that you freely allow on your
website (see further below for proof of why this is; and he has been
corrected many times)).

I
find it interesting that you did not answer this questions and that you
constantly delete Catholic theologians or the saints teaching on what moral
virtuous sexuality is; and [that
you] remove their quotes unanimously condemning excessiveness or lustfulness
(such as lustful kisses, thoughts and touches etc.) as mortal sins – whether
within or without of marriage.

You
are clearly an enemy of virtue and morality. For the true Catholic teachings concerning this
most important topic – that almost universally everyone today are mortal sinners
in – you delete, reject, ban and spit upon. You thus encourage the damnation
of souls by keeping from them the information that could help them and save
them; and help them out of their sexual mortal sins/and or heresy.

You
even removed the post directed at a user asking about this very topic on a
thread, that is: what the Catholic position on sexual ethics was. This was
shown her, yet you removed it for you don't care about truth being taught...

You
are thus an enemy of the Church, the Tradition and of Jesus Christ who all
universally taught these things. (Also see a repetition of the Jean Gerson
quote you refused to answer when being asked about it by Aquinas below;
namely if you agreed with catholic theologian Jean Gerson's view on sexual
ethics that he expresses below).

You
are also an obstinate mortal sinner for perversely and evilly allowing filth
and evil commercials to be displayed on your website. I have told you for years about this (and you have
banned me twice in the past for expressly and harshly calling you out on this
one and for criticizing you regarding it), yet you don't care nor have you
made any changes. You don't care one bit about that every single person who
enters your website is or are becoming tempted by these evil, filthy, immodest,
sensual looking commercials that you allow to be displayed on your website
for evil gain – woe to mammon! and you cannot serve both it and God!

You
also perhaps don't know that the ads differs from every country's IP that
enters your site. Thus, you can never have control of the ads displayed on
your site. American IP's ads difference from Chinese, etc. But even if you
can have more control, it is still evil, for you know that many bad
commercials appear often and regularly despite all of your efforts to the
contrary. Thus, you are just totally evil, for you allow this to happen to
the damage of souls despite perfectly being aware of it and knowing about it.

Luke
17:1-2 condemns you: "And he
said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is, temptations
or encouragement to sin] should not come: but woe to him through whom they
come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little
ones."

This
proves that you don't care one bit about souls and that indeed, you are a
mortal sinner. you are tempting
people and encouraging people to commit mortal sins of impurity in deed and
thought against both God and Heaven (and how many have actually fallen into
this sin because of you? thank God for adblocks and for the ability to
disable all images for all websites), yet you absolutely do nothing to hinder
it from taking place and even banns people for [harshly] calling you out on
this one. You are thus purely evil, and therefore, I am not surprised at
all that you are such an fierce enemy of sexual purity and sexual temperance
when your soul is already so rotten and corrupted to the core; neither am
I surprised that you removed the Catholic teaching that was presented in the
various threads on this issue (all of whom you deleted to the harm of souls)
and that was backed up with the actual Catholic teaching tradition from the
Fathers and the Saints; and the teaching of the Church.

Ask
your priest what he thinks about it, that is, that you by your own perverse
free will allow bad, immoral ads that tempts people to sensuality to be
displayed on your website, and if he thinks this is a good thing to do
against others (against other people's eternal souls). Perhaps he would tell you to stop with it. Since
you refuse to listen to me (and perhaps others who have told you about it),
perhaps he could talk some sense in your obstinate, evil, sinful head.

Also
tell him how filthy these ads really are and that they indeed tempt people
and probably have tempted many into actually committing mortal sin of
impurity (whether in deed or thought)
and that they (your ads) thus have been a direct cause for this sin against
God and Heaven – whom you claim to worship. Don't make it out to be less or
appear less evil than what it truly is. This is horrible, and evil; it is a
mortal sin! and the fact that you don't see the problem or evilness with it
[absolutely] proves the spiritual blindness and darkness you are living in –
and it totally proves the evilness of sexual sins and immorality and hatred
for Catholic Tradition and truth and obstinacy otherwise.

Perhaps
if you came out of your mortal sins first it would be easier for you too
humble yourself and see the truthfulness of previous posters statements and
finally agree with the Catholic position on sexual morality (which you
falsely call heresy).

In
your blindness you call heresy Catholicism and Catholicism heresy! That's a
total and evil inversion of the truth! "Woe to you that call evil good,
and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put
bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." – Isaiah 5:20

And
for those arguing that all we care about is sex, The issue is not about sex,
but rather about mortal sin and immorality in general (as should be obvious
from what has been written above). I concentrate on the issue that most
people today fall in, and that I think many people should be able to agree
with me on when proof is presented. It is also not without reason I do this,
for Our Lady specifically warned about that most Catholics go to Hell for
sins of the flesh; She also said that many marriages are not good etc.

Our
Lord also foretold in the New Testament that in the last days, people would
be lovers of pleasures more than God; and that no faith would be left on
earth (clearly indicating that most if not all people would be heretics
against the natural law (and many sexual sins are direct heresies against the
natural law)).

But
for many people in here these warnings or prophecies seems as of no
importance, and many act as if everything is just fine or as if everything is
just as ordinary or as normal as ever. But is it? I tell you again, if you
do not agree with catholic theologian Jean Gerson's statements below, it
proves the truth of my assertion. For you then have been/or still are a
mortal sinner or heretic (heresy is to believe mortal sin is not mortal sin
or that it's lawful to commit mortal sin [or venial sin]).

Matthew
(and all on this forum), I sincerely hope for your conversion (and that the
rest of you will be/are/have always been Catholic) and I hope you will not
remove this thread cowardly and avoid my statements (or other people's
responses) as you have done so far, but that you will do something about it.

I
will pray for you.

And now the important quote of Jean Gerson

…
[quote omitted since it was already shown above, but in summary, what was
condemned here was this (and all of this applies as much to the married as
well as unmarried, and it applies also before, during and after the marital
act): Contraception, NFP, lustful kisses and touches, foreplay, masturbation,
abortion, illicit enhancements of sexual pleasure, and all other sexual acts
not able to procreate or intended for procreation, as well as “fostering
wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy oneself” and “kisses, gazes, and
fondling, mainly caused by such wicked and lustful thoughts [that is, for the
motive of lust or sexual pleasure], without anything more, is an even greater
sin”; and so, all of these things were condemned as mortal sins] …

Again,
Jean Gerson, I think, summarizes why the world has been totally (and rightly)
abandoned by God and explains the reason behind this and why almost all
Catholics have lost the Faith (and consider his statements in light of the
prophecies already mentioned, and in light of Our Lady of Fatima's warning:
that most people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh; and that many
marriages are not good; and that certain fashions displeases God very much
and that all Faith would be lost in the last days (if you dress as people
dressed 200 years ago (or as nuns dress), then it is safe; everything else
might have at least a fault; and in general, the less clothing, the more sin.
Make up/vanity is also a sin)."

Matthew's
totally evil response:

"Hahaha

No
one else sees those filthy Google ads -- did you know that Google displays
ads based on one's past Internet browsing behavior?

At
any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I add it to the block
list. But they don't come up often -- because most people don't browse the
kind of sites you do! (hahaha)

I
thought you were obsessed with sex before -- now you've given me
near-proof of it!

You
know it's wrong to read filthy literature, watch filthy movies and porn, or
read lewd websites -- so you do the only "acceptable" thing a
sex-obsessed Catholic can do as an outlet: you totally focus your studies,
reading, and preaching on sex. Nice excuse. But I know the real reason --
you're obsessed with sex.

You're
not married, or a priest. Of what concern is sex to you, a single, home-alone
"monk"? It's none of your business. I think you missed your
vocation. St. Paul: "Better to marry than to burn."

You
are still a protestant who likes to "privately interpret" the
Church Fathers, just as all protestants privately interpret the Scriptures to
their own damnation."

The
following is my response to Matthew (I had to send this response with another
email account since he blocked me):

Hietanen:
"No, your quite wrong. I never surf any such sites. Contrary to
you, I at least seem to fear God enough to understand to avoid such things;
to surf with the web without images on, etc; and always use an adblock; and
to help [other] people do the same. [Addendum: See this link for the
information on how to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock
(and yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually
impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women
tempting you every day when surfing the internet). Only a condemned person
not fearing God or sin at all would refuse this good advice that helps him
avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday: http://www.trusaint.com/the-natural-law/#How-to-control-your-eyes]

If
you think you can make such judgment [about others]… without
any actual proof you are guilty of the mortal sin of slander too. [He
said: "But they [immodest ads] don't come up often -- because most people
don't browse the kind of sites you do! (hahaha)… You know it's wrong to read
filthy literature, watch filthy movies and porn, or read lewd websites -- so
you do the only "acceptable" thing a sex-obsessed Catholic can do as
an outlet: you totally focus your studies, reading, and preaching on sex. Nice
excuse. But I know the real reason -- you're obsessed with sex."] In fact,
I often choose not to watch even lawful movies with beautiful people in them
since God have given me the grace to be disturbed even by seeing faces. Yes, I
try to avoid the world. Even If I am a miserable monk, that is my ultimate
goal--to achieve total obedience and self-mortification (which is the hardest
part for me). (See more on the ads and how they work further below.)

Yes
I am unmarried. So was in general
all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church I am aware of (if not all,
perhaps 97-99% ?). Thus, that I am unmarried perhaps makes me even more fit
(and unbiased) when talking about this issue -- about sexuality and sexual
sins -- since I don't want to excuse my self or justify evil, sinful
behavior.

If
you wonder why I focus so much on sex and sexual sins -- which obviously, unless one is a liar, is
easy to understand that [because] the whole world essentially is fallen in
[this sin] considering the testimonies of our Lady and our Lord -- [and
as an example demonstrating this fact] consider this thread on your forum:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sexual-Impurity-Need-advice
[it has since been removed]

This
(in the thread) is exactly the kind of mortal sin/heresy against nature I
wanted to save people from and make them aware of. Notice that he who asked the question even seems to
doubt if it [that he ejaculated by sexual foreplay] was a sin. (And
that is without even considering that they were practicing sexual foreplay--which
always is a mortal sin in it self by the way--but that was not the issue
here and he didn't even ask if that was a sin (foreplay), but just if
it was a sin for him to have an orgasm outside of the marital act.)
Notice how some evil people told him it is not necessarily a sin. Others
claimed it is only a sin if one touches the genitals but not necessarily if
other body parts are touched. Other points out correctly that such things
always are wrong or should be avoided although in rather weak terms. ---
Well, except for those who think or said it's wrong, they are all wrong.
Foreplay and all forms of it, and all lustful kisses and touches etc are
always mortal sins. To doubt that it is always a mortal sin
is heresy, for impurity is dogmatized quite clearly by the Church
and the Bible (and the Natural Law too) to be a mortal sin. And to say that
it is only wrong to touch the genitals for the motive of lust but not others
parts [of the body or other objects] for the same lustful reason is also
wrong, and a heresy (foreplay, whatever form of it, is a mortal sin--and
lust evidently doesn't stop to be a mortal sin in marriage! as is quite clear
from the teaching authority I had already presented on the matter, and which
you so far have not given me an answer on). All lustful kisses and
touches, as I proved to you already by the Fathers, Saints, Popes, St. Thomas
Aquinas and Jean Gerson, is a mortal sin.

Yet
when you hinder me from spreading these CATHOLIC truths and even deleting the
very posts on the matter -- the
very teaching of the Church on this issue and the Catholic saints, fathers
and theologians actual opinions (and which you falsely call private
interpretations, which is such an outrageous dishonesty because they all
teach the same thing and are unambiguously clear)you are helping and
encouraging those people--such as mentioned above--and that I wanted to
help, to stay in their darkness, mortal sin, and heresy. You are thus
helping them to be damned for your apparent hatred or resistance of the
Catholic truth and Catholic position of moral sexual ethics.

What
is your opinion of Jean Gerson? You have still not answered! Or about Thomas
Aquinas who taught that even an
inappropriate sexual position was a mortal sin (in most cases)? Or about that
the Church even views a kiss as a mortal sin if it is performed for lustful
motives? Or that they teach exactly the same of sensual touches, etc? This, of
course, totally condemns foreplay as so many people, "catholic" or
not, actually seem to believe is okay to do... well, it is not; and they
who believe it is right to do such depraved things [or any kind of foreplay
or lustful acts except for what is inherent in the normal, natural and
procreative marital act itself] are in Hell already and will go there the
moment they die unless they be converted from their deadly errors before the
time of their deaths.

MORE
ON THE ADS

And
even if, as you say, such ads come more often if one actually surf bad sites,that in no way excuses you for allowing such
filth to be displayed for such sinful people on your self-professed Catholic
forum. Perhaps they want help and save their souls? but you instead allow
them to die spiritually by furthering giving them options for falling away
and commit mortal sin! You are thus totally evil--for you admit to me that
you know this is happening yet allows it to happen!

The
ads often corresponds to the threads too.

And
I tell you again, the ads doesn't work as you think they do. I never surf
such sites you falsely accused me of (and you committed a mortal sin of
slander by the way for you not merely asked if this was the case, but said
boldly and clearly that I did these things and that you now understand, etc.,
why or why not I acted in such or such a way). So confess this sin also, in
addition to asking your priest about the evil ads on your site.

I
have also seen other people on your forum complain about bad/filthy/sensual
ads; perhaps you accuse them of surfing [bad websites or reading about sex]…
too?

Try
enter your site on a new browser with cleared cookies and different country
ips and you will see what it displays. It is totally not as you think it is.

And
you have no excuse since you know this is happening. You are thus helping
people to commit mortal sin.

Mostly
I never see ads at your sites since I have them blocked, I am talking mostly
from past experiences and from other people's testimonies. Also, I did a
quick test some week ago; the ads popping up was a site for men looking for
single women, etc; also a site for women looking for men I saw too. Often
sites of makeup I have seen too. This is totally vain and useless and
invitation to sin."

ADDENDUM

On May 11 2014,
gooch, a cathinfo.com forum member posted a thread asking a question on
Matthew's forum. He did this after having read the section on Lustful Kisses and Touches found on our website, and after having
quoted the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas' own words with our commentary, he
asked the question what people make of this. Matthew having seen the thread on
May 12, deleted all the vital information concerning the unlawfulness of
indulging in illicit sexual pleasure.

The following is
Matthew's evil, lying, slanderous, mortally sinful and heretical reply to
gooch's post about the information that he posted with our commentary:

"That site was created by a banned member (who was banned
for a very good reason!)

He is a puritan heretic[that's a
direct lie since the position we're advocating is the same as the Catholic
Church's, the saints, the fathers and the theologians that we are quoting]. He is an ex-protestant (the ex- part
is debatable) who claims or pretends to be Catholic, yet is filled with
errors[according to
Matthew, the teaching of the Church -- some of which has already been quoted
above -- is erroneous]. In particular, he is obsessed with sex and foreplay (don't
get too excited now -- he's AGAINST it[of course we
are against foreplay but we are not against lawful procreative marital sexual
relations, and so must you and everyone else if they want to save their soul
from eternal hell-fire. Yet Matthew's response, actions and deeds otherwise
-- and by his evasion to answer simple questions concerning this sinful deed
-- all seem to suggest that he is not opposed to it, sadly]...) He is also addicted to putting
his own bizarre opinions on the level of Catholic dogma[if we did not back up anything of what we
said with any Church teachings or quotes from the Popes, Saints, Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, Matthew's comment would make more sense. But since we
do provide the quotations and their teachings, this proves that he is just a
faithless heretic "pretending" this is our own position rather than
the Church's even though he knows and are perfectly aware of that all the
quotes on this issue (many of which he has seen) supports us. Yet he forgets
about it all since he don't want to think about it, evil as he is].

To keep things rated G, let's just say he believes that things
must be kept to a bare minimum[no, what we
believe -- and what the Church teaches -- is that the only thing that is
permitted by itself is the natural and normal sexual act itself and what is
inherent therein. All other sexual acts performed for lustful reasons not
intended for procreation or necessary for procreation or able to procreate,
is a mortal sin]. No
need for a sit down restaurant; a handful of acorns picked up on the way to
work and a dry crust of bread will "get the job done" (maintaining
life), so seasonings, flavors, variety, dedicated mealtimes, etc. is
unnecessary and therefore sinful "gluttony". Oh, and in case you
enjoy acorns or dry bread, you should plug your nose (so you can't taste
anything) just to be safe from danger of hell-fire[St. Thomas Aquinas taught:“the sin
of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason...”
and “lust there signifies any kind of excess” (Summa
Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1). The “excess” that St. Thomas and the
Church condemns as a sin are all sexual acts except for what is inherent in
the normal, natural and procreative marital act itself. All other sexual acts
are by their own nature inexcusable and a sin against the Natural Law. In
truth, “We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to
certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1).
Notice that St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so
forth” and so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative
and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. This is also why
the Natural Law and the Church teaches that even sensual kisses performed “for
the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss”
is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried people
alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals Condemned in Decree #40,
September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666, Denz. 1140)].

He spends hours each day thinking about and writing about sex [no we don't. We only write about it when
necessity requires it (such as writing an article or teaching on a forum)]. He's like a man who checks out a Moral
Theology book and skips to the chapter on "6th and 9th" -- what he
might call "the good stuff". He has no mandate or excuse to
think about, write about, or focus on such a prurient topic. He's just a
pervert in disguise[according
to Matthew, we have no "mandate" or "right" to help save
souls come out of mortal sin and hell-fire by teaching them -- and showing them
-- the Church's actual teachings from of the popes, fathers and saints and
firmly adhering to their teachings! In reality, Matthew is just a faithless
heretic "disguising" himself as a Catholic whereas, in truth, he is
a mortal enemy of God and a hater of the Catholic religion].

The last time I spoke with him (after banning his latest
account) he sent me an angry e-mail recommending me for Hell in about a dozen
different ways [justly so;
and by the way, he still allows advertisements on his website to the
destruction of souls; nor has he corrected anything and he even continues to
lie and slander even though he was rebuked for exactly this, as we could see
above].

Anyhow, my main problem with this man comes from his own
website: He was "inspired" to put himself out as a teacher of men
(with a large website) when his life as a Catholic was measured in MONTHS [notice how Matthew focuses on absolutely
everything else except for actually proving his own position. He is just out
to slander us and making us look bad. That is how all deceivers and liars
deceive people. And by the way, we have been familiar with Catholic teaching,
dogma, the saints and Church fathers for several years! Matthew is just a
slanderer who have no fear about what he writes and he seems to think that he
can write and make up whatever he like about us without considering the fact
that he will have to render the strictest account for every word that he has
ever made]. It's a
classic case of the blind leading the blind [we will see in the day of judgment who is deceiving and
killing souls; whether we teach the truth or not with the quotes that we
present; and whether you are right in resisting it with your all strength]!

Anyhow, you can safely ignore this lunatic. Stick to more
reputable Catholic authors -- those with suffixes after their names, those
with actual Theology training, as well as those whose names start with
"Fr.", "Msgr." or "His Excellency" and you'll
be fine [that is exactly
what we quote! but Matthew rejects and forgets about it all! How about
"St." Thomas Aquinas, "Pope" Alexander VII, innumerable
other "saints" and "fathers", or Jean Gerson, who
"was the most popular and influential theologian of his
generation"].

This man likes to quote various authors, including Scripture and
St. Thomas Aquinas, but the "good part" (or what backs him up)
is always what is added by him in brackets. Not the words of St. Thomas
Aquinas himself. Like I said: private, ignorant interpretation all the
way."

As we have seen,
the amount of lies and falsehoods in his above post is, simply said, shocking
and mind blowing.

What's most
tragic with this Matthew person is that he frequently make good posts on his
forum against slander, calumny and detraction from various Catholic
writers, yet he seems totally oblivious to the fact that he himself is totally
sunken and fallen in this mortal and deadly vice. That's because he don't fear
God enough or seriously considers the eternal ramifications of all his words,
lies, and actions.

Please pray for Matthew and
for his conversation and that he will stop being such a fierce enemy of sexual
purity; and that he will stop promoting and advertising evil, immoral
commercial at his website for the destruction of souls.

Now, concerning
what Matthew said about “the "good part" (or what backs him up) is
always what is added by him in brackets. Not the words of St. Thomas Aquinas
himself. Like I said: private, ignorant interpretation all the way...” -- just
as if he had "forgotten" all the other quotes on the same subject
already quoted (and that he had deleted) -- we will simply let the reader
decide for themselves whether St. Thomas Aquinas is agreeing with us or not in
the quotations presented or whether this is just our "own invention",
as suggested by the heretic Matthew.

Copyright information: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the information.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42